Recommended Posts

Qur'an, in Arabic, could only have been written by ONE of 3 possible sources:

1 The Arabs

2 Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

3 Allah (GOD)

Besides the above mentioned sources, Qur'an couldn't possibly have been written by ANYONE else. No other source is possible, because Qur'an is written in pure, rich, and poetic Arabic, which was not known to anyone other than the above mentioned sources, at that time. The Arabic language was at its peak in expression, richness, vocabulary, artistic, and poetic value during the time the Qur'an was being revealed. Anyone speaking the classical Arabic ( the Arabic of Qur'an at the time it was revealed) would argue that a non-Arab entity couldn't possibly have written such an extensive and brilliant piece of literature in the Arabic language. Qur'an could only have been written by an Arabic speaking entity.

An entity, who's knowledge, style, vocabulary, grammar, and way of expression was so powerful that it impacted the entire Arabian peninsula, the east, the west, and continues to impact people all over the globe today!

At no other time, in the history of Arabic language, had it ever achieved its peak in expression, literature, and development, than the time of Arabia during the 6th Century, the time when Qur'an was being revealed. With the Arabic language at its peak, and the best of Arabic writers, poets present in Arabia, it is impossible that a non-Arabic speaking entity would write a book like Qur'an and have such a dynamite impact on the Arabs!

Lets examine the three choces one by one.

(1) Arabs Wrote it ?

What Qur'an teaches goes DIRECTLY against the pagan Arab culture, religion, and gods, that existed before the Qur'an was revealed. Qur'an condemns idol worshipping, but the Arabs, loved their idol gods, and worshipped them regularly. Qur'an raised the status of women; the Arabs treated women next to animals. The Arabs would never write something that goes against their most important belief of idol worshipping. Qur'an goes against most of the social habbits (such as backbiting, slandering, name calling, etc) which the Arabs were heavily indulged into. For example, the Arabs would call insulting nicknames such as Abu Jahal (the father of ignorance). Qur'an condemns and prohibits taking interest on money, whereas, the Arabs freely levied heavy interest rates in loans and businesses. Qur'an condemns and prohibits Alcohol drinking, whereas, the Arabs consumed alcohol freely. The Qur'an condemns and prohibits gambling, whereas, the Arabs were some of the worst gamblers. The Arabs would never write something so comprehensively against just about all of their customs and culture and religious beliefs, as the Qur'an is.

During the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the Arabs would indulge in all the social habits that the Qur'an condemns and prohibits. How can Arabs then write something that would negate their entire society's norms and ideologies ?

Did a group of Arabs or an individual Arab write Qur'an? Perhaps a rebel Arab beduoin, or a society's misfit, or someone with different ideals and norms decided one day to write Qur'an? The answer to those questions are also 'no'. Because, if we read Qur'an, we notice that there is no author ! No individual has his/her name written on the cover of Qur'an! No one in the history of the world has EVER claimed to have written the Qur'an, No one in the world has ever been accused of writing the Holy Qur'an, except the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), by non-muslims.

The Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the only Arabian who first practiced, explained, and preached Qur'an, and ended up making a lot of Arab tribes enemies. Any historian, Muslim or non-Muslim would argue that the only possible source of Qur'an can be the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the man responsible to recite it, teach it, and expalin it to the people of Arabia. In fact, many historians today still think that only Mohammad (pbuh) could possibly have written it.

This leads one to conclude that the Prophet (pbuh) must have written it !

(2) Mohammad (PBUH) wrote it ?

First, he was illiterate !! How can an illiterate person come up with such a rich, poetic, intellectual, and inspiring text that it rocked the entire Arabia ? Mohammad (pbuh) never went to school ! No one taught him. He had no teacher of any kind in any subjects. How can he have the knowledge of all the science, astronomy, oceanography, etc that is contained in the Qur'an ? ( For example, the mention of ocean currents, stars, earth, moon, sun and their fixed paths in Soorah Rahman; and many other scientific statements that are found in Qur'an, that cannot be stated in this short article)

When Qur'an was revealed, the Arabic language was at its peak in richness, poetic value, literature, etc. Qur'an came and challenged the best literature in Arabic, the best poetry in Arabic of the time to produce a single chapter like that of the Qur'an.

And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 2,Verse 23

Mohammad (PBUH) being illiterate couldnt possibly have come up with something so immaculate that it even exceded the best of poetry, and literature in Arabic at the time of the language's PEAK development. Arabic language had never been so rich in expression, poetic value, vocabulary, and variety in literature, as it was in the time of Qur'an. At a time like this, Qur'an came and exceeded the best of Arabic in all aspects of the language: poetry, literature, expression, etc. Any classical Arabic speaker would appreciate the unbeatten, unchallenged, and unmatched beauty of the language of Qur'an.

Mohammad (PBUH) had no reason to come up with something like Qur'an, and cause the entire society of Arabia to become his enemy. Why would he do something like that? Why would he write something going against almost all of the norms of the society, and lose his family, relatives, friends, and other loved ones , and not to mention all the wealth he lost ?

Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years ! A very long time! Is it possible for someone to maintain the same exact style of Arabic speech , as demonstrated in Qur'an, for over 23 years ?

Also, what the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) used to say is recorded in what we call his hadeeth (sunnah). If we look at the Arabic style of the hadeeth, and compare it with the style of Qur'an, we can clearly see that they are clearly DIFFERENT, and DISTINGUISHABLE Arabic styles. The Prophet (PBUH) spoke in public. It does not make sense that a man has two UNIQUE, Distinguishable, and completely different styles of speech in public. Yet another reason why Mohammad (PBUH) couldn't possibly have written Qur'an.

It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest error The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 62,Verse 2

The Conclusion:Qur'an is Allah (God)'s word.

The Qur'an has retained its original pure form for over 14 centuries not a word has changed. Allah has promised to safeguard it from corruption

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 15,Verse 9

No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 41,Verse 42

Source:you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islam.thetruecall(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65

I was wondering how to respond to this post. I considered a point by point questioning of it, but that seemed to miss the point of why I was so unconvinced by its account. Then it dawned on me that the reason I struggled to take its conclusion seriously is its statement of claims were done with such incredible confidence, as though there were no way to doubt them. But then, I easily came up with a number of ways of doubting it, various possibilities and the like, and this is why I had difficulty with it as a work of apologetics for the Muslim faith, and that is that it fails to understand the non-Muslim audience. In fact, I would be willing to bet that hardly any non-Muslims would find this convincing, even if they weren't well acquainted with the Qur'an, and that is because it fails to recognize the doubts and questions that it might bring up and sufficiently address them.

I struggle with any account that so easily uses terms like "impossible", "never", and "only possible", not because I have proof to the contrary, but because I don't see your proof rising to the level where you could offer me that kind of certainty.

No, because I have no proof against lots of things, many of them preposterous (like the Easter bunny). For me, my assessment of a truth claim comes done to what evidence is offered in it's favor, then comparing the strength of that to the believability of the claim. Ordinary claims don't usually require lots of evidence, while extaordinary claims may call for powerful demonstrations (such as claims of ESP or other paranormal claims).

He picked it up from hearing stories and arguments of jews and christians at oases and campfires.

I understand where you got this idea, and frankly, it seems like at least a plausible explanation, but you do realize you are going to be asked to back up such a claim. Not saying it can't be done, but be prepared.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quite frankly Mohammed was not illiterate, he just couldnt write, or so he claimed.

Do you have proof for this, or is it based on your opinion?

But he was smart enough to lead his wifes caravans to syria and make a handsome profit there.

She wasn't his wife at the time, she later on proposed to him.

He didnt pick up the quran from reading the bible.

He picked it up from hearing stories and arguments of jews and christians at oases and campfires.

You mean in the same way that a non-Christian person could argue that your Jesus was not divine or divinely inspired, but rather picked up stories from the Jews. Christians should never throw stones.

I won't bother asking for proof on this one, "the sad clown". Because to prove that prophet Muhammad copied from the Jews and Christians he would first have to prove that he was not divinely inspired. And I'm confident that he will fail in such an attempt because no one has yet to prove/disprove the supernatural or divine.

Including the ludicrous idea that alexander was a righteous monotheist.

Alexander is mentioned neither in the Qur'an nor in the Hadiths. Unless you are confusing him with Dhul Qarnain.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have read there are grammatical errors in the 8th century Quran. How are these explained. An example:

In 5:69

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)

You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have read there are grammatical errors in the 8th century Quran. How are these explained. An example:

In 5:69

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)

You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.

.

Neither of us is an Arabic grammarian, so I will leave the scholars to answer this so-called error. But I'd like to say that if the grammar of an old book is being judged by the grammatical rules of the present, I hope you realize that makes no sense. Arabic grammar has been established by the grammar of the Qur'an, not vice versa. And if the old Arabs, who prided themselves on their literary abilities, saw no flaws in the verse and did not bring up the issue, you have to ask yourself if there is legitimacy behind the person who came up with this.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have read there are grammatical errors in the 8th century Quran. How are these explained. An example:

In 5:69

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)

You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.

.

These are typical of anti Islamic websites like the one you copy and pasted your post from. If you really want to learn the truth about Islam then you should never look for it on anti-Islamic websites who's aim is nothing more than to use deceptive methods to try and defame Islam but there attacks have been refuted time and time again and are absolutley baseless and do not prove nothing at all except that these anti Islamists do not want to learn the truth about a matter but will only ever believe what they want to believe but you as a person looking into Islam should look at both sides of the coin before making up your conclusions.

Here is the refutation of your anti-Islamic websites copy and paste:

Praise be to Allaah.

The word al-Saabiâ€™een (in the accusative) appears in Soorat al-Baqarah and Soorat al-Hajj, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

â€œVerily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians [waâ€™l-saabiâ€™een ], whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieveâ€

[al-Baqarah 2:62]

â€œVerily, those who believe (in Allaah and in His Messenger Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and the Sabians [waâ€™l-saabiâ€™een], and the Christians, and the Majoos, and those who worship others besides Allaah; truly, Allaah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily, Allaah is over all things a Witnessâ€

[al-Hajj 22:17]

The same word appears in the nominative form in Soorat al-Maaâ€™idah, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

â€œSurely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allaah, in His Messenger Muhammad and all that was revealed to him from Allaah), and those who are the Jews and the Sabians [waâ€™l-saabiâ€™oon] and the Christians, â€” whosoever believed in Allaah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieveâ€

[al-Maaâ€™idah 5:69]

In the first two verses, there is nothing difficult about the grammar, because the word al-saabiâ€™een follows the conjunction waw (and) is in agreement with the word alladheena (those who); it is the noun of the particle inna (translated here as â€œverilyâ€) and as such appears in the accusative form of the sound masculine plural, in accordance with the rules of Arabic grammar.

Where the confusion arises is in the third verse quoted, from Soorat al-Maa'idah, where the word appears in the same position with regard to word order, but appears in the nominative form.

The grammarians and mufassireen explained this in several ways, and they mentioned several well-known similar usages in Arabic. It is sufficient here to quote just three of them, which are among the most well known.

1 â€“ The word order in the verse differs from everyday usage. Based on that, the meaning is that those who believe, and those who are the Jews and the Christians, whosoever believed in Allaah â€¦ on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve, and the same applies to the Sabians. So the subject appears in the nominative, as is indicated by the waw of the sound masculine plural. There is a similar example in Arabic verse where the poet says:

(Whoever ends up in Madeenah with his saddle, then Qayyaar and I are strangers).

The point here is that the word Qayyaar â€“ which is the name of his horse or camel â€“ appears in the nominative here (qayyaarun) because it is the subject. It does not appear in the accusative even though it is preceded by the particle inna (inni = inna + the yaa (i) which is the accusative suffix representing the first person singular pronoun following the particle inna).

2 â€“ The word al-saabiâ€™oon is the subject and the word al-nasaara (Christians) is in agreement with it. The phrase man aamana Billaah (whoever believed in Allaah) is the predicate of al-saabiâ€™oon . The predicate of inna is omitted here, as is indicated by the predicate of the subject al-saabiâ€™oon . A similar usage in Arabic appears in the line of verse:

(We with what we have and you with what you have are content, even though it is different).

The point here is that the subject nahnu (we) is not followed by its predicate, because the predicate of anta (you) is sufficient. The predicate of anta â€“ raadin (content) â€“ includes the predicate of the first subject, nahnu (we). What these words mean is: we are content with what we have and you are content with what you have.

3 â€“ The word al-saabiâ€™oon appears in conjunction with the word that takes the place of the noun of inna. If any of these particles â€“ inna and its â€œsistersâ€ â€“ comes at the beginning of a nominal sentence that is composed of a subject and predicate, the noun of inna was originally nominative because it is the subject, before the word inna was introduced. Hence the word al-saabiâ€™oon is nominative because it is a word that takes the place of the noun of inna.

See Awdah al-Masaalik by Ibn Hishaam, with a commentary by Muhiy al-Deen (1/352-366); and the Tafseer al-Shawkaani waâ€™l-Aloosi, on this verse.

What you have mentioned, about your certain faith in the words of Allaah, is what is expected of every Muslim. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

â€œDo they not then consider the Qurâ€™aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradictionâ€

[al-Nisaâ€™ 4:82]

One of the things of which we must be certain is that this phrase, with this pronunciation, was revealed like this. This is how it was pronounced by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), this is how the Muslims learned it from him and recited it, and wrote it in the Mus-hafs, and they were pure Arabs. This became a new principle by means of which we learned a new usage of conjunctions in Arabic, even though it is not a common usage, but it is very eloquent and evocativeâ€¦ (End quote)

Ibn â€˜Aashoor tried to explain the eloquence of this word al-saabiâ€™oon appearing in the nominative. He said words to the effect that: the nominative in this context is unusual, so it makes the reader pause and wonder why this word is put in the nominative, when it would usually appear in the accusative.

See the commentary on the verse from al-Maa'idah in Tafseer Ibn â€˜Aashoor.

For more information on who the Sabians were, see the answer to the question: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islamqa(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/en/ref/49048"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islamqa(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/en/ref/49048[/url]

But there are a few points that should be noted from this discussion:

Firstly: We should take an interest in sharâ€™i knowledge; it is not sufficient to rely only on faith that we already have in our hearts even though that is the greatest source of protection. If sharâ€™i (Islamic) knowledge is added to that then â€“ in sha Allaah â€“ it will give extra protection against doubts and confusion that the enemies of our religion may try to stir up.

Secondly: questions like this draw attention to the extent of negligence concerning one of the most important duties that we have towards the Book of Allaah, which is the duty to study and ponder it, not just recite it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

â€œ(This is) a Book (the Qurâ€™aan) which We have sent down to you, full of blessings, that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding may rememberâ€

[saad 38:29]

Shaykh Ibn Saâ€™di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: This is the reason why it was revealed, so that people may ponder its verses, derive knowledge from it and contemplate its meanings and rulings. For by studying it and contemplating its meanings, and studying it time after time, they will attain its blessings and goodness. This indicates that we are encouraged to study the Qurâ€™aan, and that this is one of the best of deeds, and that reading that includes pondering the meanings is better than a quick recitation that does not achieve this purpose. The evidence for this is that if we were to undertake this obligation time after time, these verses would cause us to stop and wonder about the meaning, so that we would ask about it and research it, before we are confronted with specious arguments from our enemies.

Thirdly: If we undertook the two obligations referred to above, we would be qualified to take the initiative and call others, telling them of the truth that we have and informing them â€“ in the best manner â€“ of the falseness of their ways, instead of being on the defensive, weak and defeated. And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islamqa(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/en/ref/49860"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islamqa(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/en/ref/49860[/url]

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If that is the case how do Muslims confirm this was truly transmitted through the oral teachings of Mohammed?

God bless,

In every generation of Muslims, there have always been hundreds, thousands, of people who have memorized the Qur'an. The reason the first copy of the written Qur'an was compiled was because in a single battle, many memorizers were killed. Upon Umar Bin Khattab's suggestion, Abu Bakr (the Caliph of the Muslims at the time) brought together prophet Muhammad's scribes (Abd-Allah ibn â€˜Amr ibn al-â€˜Aas, Muâ€™aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Zayd ibn Thabit, etc), and had them compile the Qur'an into one book under the leadership of Zayd Ibn Thabit. When they completed it, the written Qur'an was then preserved by Abu Bakr, then by Umar Bin Khattab, then by Umar's daughter, Hafsa.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If that is the case how do Muslims confirm this was truly transmitted through the oral teachings of Mohammed?

God bless,

Because we have the unbroken chains of transmission that lead back to Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him). Every professional reciter of the Qur'an is in a line of transmission leading back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him), reciters such as Mishary, Shuraim, Sudais etc. There are plenty of others, however, those people have their recitation of the Qur'an loaded on Youtube if you want to listen.

The compilation of the Mus-haf started by Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and was finished by Uthmaan ibn Affaan Al-Shaheed ra. Uthmaan decided to have the Qur'an in one Arabic dialect for better understanding. The Mus-haf had been in various dialects, but Uthmaan just allowed one dialect, the Quraishy dialect.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Yusha

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You have a line of reciters that have faithfully preserved the Quran. We have a line of bishops that date back to the time of the apostles that have faithfully preserved the Bible. Why doubt them? Whatâ€™s the difference?

God bless,

I'm sure that you are aware that as far as historians and scholars, Muslims and Non-Muslims are concerned, there was never really any argument and uncertainty with regard to the preservations of the Quran, both in recitation and writing. I can provide references and sources if you like..

Your claim above, however, is bogus. Here are some quotes from third party sources based on what the Bible scholar themselves stated, please check them:

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"

"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"

"Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"

"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"

"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"

snip to brevity..

Unknown authors, unknown places, unknown writings assigned to different authors, writing not in earlier manuscripts and added by unknown people/scribes etc etc..Where is that list of bishops that can be traced back to the authors? Would it matter given the above quotes??

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

These speculations do not prove the Bible has been tampered for the purpose of deliberately changing the original message.

Speculations?

-All quotes from Christianity own Bible group, are you saying there is no basis whatsoever for their statements?

-Check out RJV first edition, where 32 highest eminent Bible scholars from over 50 different denominations of Christianity unanimously agreed that certain part of the Bible was indeed corruptions/additions/alterations and purged out these verses based on clear cut evidence they hand in hand. Are those speculations too? Wow you must have known more that those scholars..

A day at your local church library is probably all you need to prove to yourself how the Bible changed over time..compare your current version to the one say from 50years ago and see for yourself, margin notes into main text, words switvhed around..etc etc.. gotta to go..

Edited January 8, 2011 by RAHIMI

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You have a line of reciters that have faithfully preserved the Quran. We have a line of bishops that date back to the time of the apostles that have faithfully preserved the Bible. Why doubt them? What’s the difference?

God bless,

Hello, Augustine

That's actually a good question. What is the difference indeed? The answer is that the line of Apostolic Succession is a fabrication. In fact, I brought up this subject with another Catholic who goes by the forum name LUX IN TENEBRIS here on gawaher.

This is how the discussion went:

I said that Christians don't have an Isnad (chain of transmission).

LUX IN TENEBRIS:

"Now Christians do have a detailed isnad, but not of what you would expect. We have a detailed isnad for Apostolic succession, i.e. the Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. This isnad was used to combat early gnostic heresies, which claimed a secret knowledge from the apostles. The importance is that it does show a connnection to the past. Christ promised He would be with His church till the end of time, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her, so we know the Church that is built on the Apostles is free from error, and this is by Divine protection."

My response:

"There exists confusion regarding the chronological order of the Popes and their actual indentities.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the "Catalogus Liberianus", the "Carmen contra Marcionem" and the "Liber Pontificalis", all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the "Catalogus Felicianus" even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman.

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety.

This information is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there is one word that can summarize this Apostolic succession, it is - confusion. For any Muslim or anybody who really isn't familiar with this information, this talk is regarding the first Popes that came after Peter the Apostle who is said to have been the disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the chronological order and even identities are put into question.

I'll give an analogy from the Islamic succession of the Khilafah. It indeed would be a sad state of affairs if Muslims were not certain who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon). What would it sound like to you if people were saying that Abu Bakr was the first, others were saying Umar was actually the first and then others that Uthman was the first. And to make matters even more laughable people wouldn't even be sure regarding the identity of Uthman, some would be saying that he was actually Ali and some saying that he was Arab and others that he was actually Persian. And to top it off, people would have varying lists with some having Umar first followed by Abu Bakr and others with Uthman followed by Umar. Obviously this analogy is not really all that great because everybody unanimously agrees that Abu Bakr was the Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him), followed by Umar, followed by Uthman, followed by Ali and their biographies are well known(may God be pleased with them all), but it does show how obviously ridiculous it is when the order of Popes and their identities are disputed . And Lux, don't try to pull out the Shia card and say that there is confusion since their error deals with theology and who ought to have been Caliph, not with actual history.

So you see, this is why I really don't give Apostolic Succession much credit because obviously there exists a great amount of confusion."

Moreover, I brought up this topic several times in my discussions with him and he didn't even respond once to the criticism that was raised regarding Apostolic Succession, although he was otherwise very keen on responding to other criticism regarding Christianity, i.e. the tranmission of the Gospels and the crufixion narrative among others.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If the Qu'ran is the speech of Allah, that must mean that Arabic is perfect? But it cannot be perfect as its a human construct and in any case also borrows words from other imperfect languages so it cannot be the speech of Allah?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If the Qu'ran is the speech of Allah, that must mean that Arabic is perfect? But it cannot be perfect as its a human construct and in any case also borrows words from other imperfect languages so it cannot be the speech of Allah?

You're forgetting that Allah is our Creator and has given us the capacity to create a language fitting for His revelation. Just because man is imperfect doesn't mean that language is insufficient.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Qur'an, in Arabic, could only have been written by ONE of 3 possible sources:

1 The Arabs

2 Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

3 Allah (GOD)

Besides the above mentioned sources, Qur'an couldn't possibly have been written by ANYONE else. No other source is possible, because Qur'an is written in pure, rich, and poetic Arabic, which was not known to anyone other than the above mentioned sources, at that time. The Arabic language was at its peak in expression, richness, vocabulary, artistic, and poetic value during the time the Qur'an was being revealed. Anyone speaking the classical Arabic ( the Arabic of Qur'an at the time it was revealed) would argue that a non-Arab entity couldn't possibly have written such an extensive and brilliant piece ...

Your logic is inescapable. I feel as if I am in an airtight box. I have to find an Islamic center right now to convert!